Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Legal matters

Mumsnet has not checked the qualifications of anyone posting here. If you have any legal concerns we suggest you consult a solicitor.

Original poster

My sister wants to sue me to for mortgage payments on our joint flat, even though I didn't live there

325 replies

Confused20232023 · 18/10/2023 13:28

My sister and I bought a flat together about 6 years ago (our parents helped us with the deposit if that matters) which we lived in together. About 2 years ago we talked about selling the flat because I wanted to move in with my boyfriend. My sister couldn't afford to buy me out so we agreed that she would pay the mortgage and all bills on the flat until we sold. We have this in writing on email and Whatsapp texts, and we also discussed this with our parents.

We eventually sold the flat (a whole story to itself!), and now my sister is saying that I should have paid the mortgage over the 2 years (when I wasn't living there), and is threatening to sue me to make me pay. Does she have a case if we have something in writing to say that she would pay all mortgage and bills while she lived there? I'm getting worried as we can't afford to pay her, and my boyfriend and I are planning on starting a family, so every pound counts!

We are in England.

OP posts:
sandyhappypeople · 18/10/2023 15:39

Puffalicious · 18/10/2023 15:28

Technically you should have continued to pay half the mortgage as it was a joint asset, which you BOTH stand to benefit equally from upon it's sale, you can't just opt out of it, as you signed to legally be 50% responsible for it and you haven't been, are both your names on the mortgage & deeds?

Yes, and technically the DS should have allowed a lodger to pay OP's part of the mortgage/ bf to move in / agreed to the sale.

In fairness it sounds like the sister was happy with the arrangement at the time, but I suspect the sisters circumstances may have now changed, or she just assumed OP wouldn't get half when it was sold. Whatever happens there's no point falling out and paying a shit ton of legal fees if they can come to an amicable agreement.

One thing I am certain of, is if that flat has gone up in value over the last two years, OP is not entitled to a cut of that price rise, that's why a line should have been drawn 2 years ago and decisions made and formalised then. OP should not be profiting off her sister.

Iwasafool · 18/10/2023 15:42

Whataretheodds · 18/10/2023 13:34

Did she pay you rent for occupying your half of the flat?

This, quite possibly the half the mortgage and half the rent would be similar. The bills well she was living there so she should pay the bills.

Don't know what a solicitor would say but I think morally you don't owe her anything, she benefitted from your equity in the flat for six years.

ChiefWiggumsBoy · 18/10/2023 15:42

If the mortgage was in joint names, then you were jointly liable to pay it. I don't think it matters that she agreed to pay it unless that was legally underwritten. If she stopped paying it, the house would have been repossessed and you would both have that on your credit file.

The fact that she's been paying into a joint asset on her own for six years, but you still got 50% of the proceeds does seem unfair and I can see where she's coming from. I have no idea if she can sue you though.

BaronessEllarawrosaurus · 18/10/2023 15:42

Collaborate · 18/10/2023 15:06

For those on this thread who are not lawyers (and there are plenty of you, based on the crap "advice" you've been posting), here is the definitive legal position (we are, after all, on the "legal" part of this site):

2 years ago OP wanted the house selling. Sister didn't want it selling at that time, so she agreed, in writing, with OP that she would pay all the mortgage after OP moves out until the house is sold. She dragged her feet in selling, but given the agreement they had reached, OP didn't force the issue.

The agreement did not alter their beneficial interests in the property. If that was the intention it would/should have been made clear at the time and also recorded in writing.

2 years later the house is sold. OP meanwhile has been prevented, by this mortgage, from investing in another property with her partner. This is legally irrelevant anyway, as they had a specific agreement that the sister would have sole occupation and for that she would pay all the mortgage.

This is what Halsburys Laws has to say about occupation rent:

It has been judicially stated that a court of equity will order an inquiry and payment of an occupation rent in any case in which it is necessary to do equity between the parties that an occupation rent should be paid. This will generally be so where one co-owner has ousted the other, but the fact that there has not been an ouster or forceful exclusion is far from conclusive.

Occupation rent is probably the wrong way to analyse this anyway - it is a tool of the courts of equity whereby a notional rent is inferred. In OP's case there is no need to infer rent, as there is an actual agreement to that effect (without mentioning the word rent - that is irrelevant).

Different people have different views of this. Morally I think OP is firmly in the right. She had an agreement with her sister. Sister should morally and legally be held to that. Had the value of the property dropped the sister would not have offered to bear the reduction entirely from her share.

@Confused20232023 this is the only poster on this thread really worth paying any attention to

Iwasafool · 18/10/2023 15:45

saffronsoup · 18/10/2023 15:15

Your agreement was fine that you move out and take over the mortgage. What wasn't fine was for you to get 50% of the proceeds of the house. She put more of her money into the house (2 years worth of mortgage payments) and yuo don't get to take her money back in equity.

You should have money now given you have received 50% of the sale. Figure out what percentage is owed her and give it to her. You aren't paying her mortgage payments, you are just giving back the equity that wasn't yours in the first place.

Say the market had been different and the flat was in negative equity, do you think the sister would have taken all the loss and paid the OP what her share was worth 2 years ago. I doubt she would.

MargotBamborough · 18/10/2023 15:45

sandyhappypeople · 18/10/2023 15:39

In fairness it sounds like the sister was happy with the arrangement at the time, but I suspect the sisters circumstances may have now changed, or she just assumed OP wouldn't get half when it was sold. Whatever happens there's no point falling out and paying a shit ton of legal fees if they can come to an amicable agreement.

One thing I am certain of, is if that flat has gone up in value over the last two years, OP is not entitled to a cut of that price rise, that's why a line should have been drawn 2 years ago and decisions made and formalised then. OP should not be profiting off her sister.

Show quote history

Why on earth should the OP not be entitled to a share of the property's increase in value over the last two years?

The OP says that her sister wanted to stay in the flat after she moved out because it was so much cheaper than renting somewhere else.

They could have sold the flat two years ago, which is what the OP wanted to do, and then the OP would have been able to get her money two years ago, which is when she wanted it.

Alternatively, the sister could have moved out of the flat and rented a room in a shared house, and they could have rented the flat out for a higher monthly rent than the mortgage repayments. If they had done that, both sisters would have had some extra money coming in each month, and they would both have been entitled to an equal share of the property's increase in value during that time.

The OP did her sister a favour by allowing her to stay in the flat and live more cheaply than would otherwise have been the case. Why should the OP be penalised for that now?

oakleaffy · 18/10/2023 15:45

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

Absolutely true- What a grabby way to carry on, I hope the sister gets back her money out of the equity.

whatkatydid2013 · 18/10/2023 15:48

sandyhappypeople · 18/10/2023 15:39

In fairness it sounds like the sister was happy with the arrangement at the time, but I suspect the sisters circumstances may have now changed, or she just assumed OP wouldn't get half when it was sold. Whatever happens there's no point falling out and paying a shit ton of legal fees if they can come to an amicable agreement.

One thing I am certain of, is if that flat has gone up in value over the last two years, OP is not entitled to a cut of that price rise, that's why a line should have been drawn 2 years ago and decisions made and formalised then. OP should not be profiting off her sister.

Show quote history

So what if it had gone down in value over same 2 years and OP lost out by not forcing a sale when she moved out?

MargotBamborough · 18/10/2023 15:48

oakleaffy · 18/10/2023 15:45

Absolutely true- What a grabby way to carry on, I hope the sister gets back her money out of the equity.

Show quote history

Huh? Why has she fucked her sister over? They lived together for four years. I doubt either sister was planning to live together for the next 25+ years and never get a boyfriend or start a family.

FSTraining · 18/10/2023 15:48

ImADevYo · 18/10/2023 15:27

I'm also wondering whether any of this is worth pursuing at all.
Let's say OP's half of the mortgage on a 2 bed flat is £400 2 years brings that to about 5K.

Surely legal fees will be at least a few grand? Even a simple house sale is about 1K I doubt that anything involving court is much cheaper.

If she was somewhere expensive like London maybe that would be double but still the rural value of the mortgage payments would be close to 10K. If the case drags on all of that would be eaten up by legal fees.

Unless home insurance legal cover will pay for this sort of thing?

Edited
Show quote history

That and falling out with a sister she was happy to live with only two years ago, possibly for life. The emotional cost really isn't worth it.

This was posted in legal matters and I gave a legal answer but I think a better answer would be to find out if the sister had to sell because of rising interest rates and whether she is struggling now. I think it unlikely she would want to fall out over this amount of money.

prh47bridge · 18/10/2023 15:48

sandyhappypeople · 18/10/2023 15:39

In fairness it sounds like the sister was happy with the arrangement at the time, but I suspect the sisters circumstances may have now changed, or she just assumed OP wouldn't get half when it was sold. Whatever happens there's no point falling out and paying a shit ton of legal fees if they can come to an amicable agreement.

One thing I am certain of, is if that flat has gone up in value over the last two years, OP is not entitled to a cut of that price rise, that's why a line should have been drawn 2 years ago and decisions made and formalised then. OP should not be profiting off her sister.

Show quote history

On what basis are you certain that OP is not entitled to any of the increase in value over the last 2 years? It was a jointly owned property so, absent any evidence of an agreement to the contrary, she is entitled to half the proceeds of any sale.

By the way, what if the value of the property had fallen over the last 2 years? Would you then say that OP's sister should bear the loss? That is, after all, the outcome if you freeze OP's share of the property at the time her sister took on the entire mortgage.

As Collaborate says, OP should stand her ground. The law is on her side.

CuriousGeorge80 · 18/10/2023 15:49

The legal position is clear and obvious. But I suspect the other sister is coming from a point of morals in her threats (and the threats are misguided). And so the moral question is a good one and I’m really not sure that it is fair that the split is 50/50 even if legally that is correct. We can’t know without further detail what is “fair”.

I think it would be sad if a family relationship that has previously been good was ruined due to one person relying on a legal position and one fighting for a moral one that the other won’t discuss or recognise. But money does do funny things to people.

For example, morally, if the house has increased 50k in value in the last two years and sister A has paid none of the costs of the flat in those two years, I think morally that sister shouldn’t get any of that 50k even if legally she is entitled to.

DisforDarkChocolate · 18/10/2023 15:50

Based on what you've said she should have either paid you rent for half the flat or allowed a lodger so you could cover half the mortgage. She can't have it both ways. You do need legal advice though.

Sallyh87 · 18/10/2023 15:54

Well yes you owe her half the mortgage payment, but then she would owe you market rent on the property for the period she was living there and you were not. Likely to be equal if not more.

Take legal advice. Also, I wouldn’t bother speaking to the grabby cow again.

NameChangePoP · 18/10/2023 15:57

Collaborate · 18/10/2023 13:52

There is some terrible advice given here.

Sister occupied the property on her own rather than selling it. In return she agreed to pay the mortgage on her own, She cannot ask you to pay after the event. A PP mentioned occupation rent - that is correct.

Stand your ground. the law is on your side (I'm a solicitor and deal with these cases).

Please can posters read the replies from qualified people and not make assumptions. Collaborate has nailed it as usual.

BalletBob · 18/10/2023 15:58

It sounds like she thought the agreement was that she would cover the mortgage payments as they became due (to free up your cash to move in with your boyfriend, and to avoid having to buy you out which she couldn't afford), but that she very reasonably expected that this would be rectified upon the eventual sale of the flat. Which is quite obviously the fair and decent thing. Either that or she agreed to it/suggested it under duress because she didn't want to lose her home. I can't believe you would think you should own 50% of an asset that you haven't contributed equally towards. She's your sister and you're trying to effectively steal from her.

I hope she does sue you and is successful. I also hope that the stress and emotional toll on her is something she is able to move past.

MargotBamborough · 18/10/2023 15:59

Ribena20 · 18/10/2023 15:51

Except in that thread it was the sister who stayed in the property who tried, unsuccessfully, to sell it.

FSTraining · 18/10/2023 16:01

CuriousGeorge80 · 18/10/2023 15:49

The legal position is clear and obvious. But I suspect the other sister is coming from a point of morals in her threats (and the threats are misguided). And so the moral question is a good one and I’m really not sure that it is fair that the split is 50/50 even if legally that is correct. We can’t know without further detail what is “fair”.

I think it would be sad if a family relationship that has previously been good was ruined due to one person relying on a legal position and one fighting for a moral one that the other won’t discuss or recognise. But money does do funny things to people.

For example, morally, if the house has increased 50k in value in the last two years and sister A has paid none of the costs of the flat in those two years, I think morally that sister shouldn’t get any of that 50k even if legally she is entitled to.

Actually this comes up a lot in divorce and I have to disagree with you. The sister who was not occupying the property has still carried the burden of being named on the mortgage and this would have prevented her from, for example, getting another mortgage (or fully exploiting her full mortgage capacity) with her boyfriend. The sister who remained in the flat has benefited from that larger mortgage capacity and it is thanks to that access to debt financing that the sister has been able to be invested in property to gain the return in the first place.

Also, not all of that gain will have been from paying the mortgage anyway. A lot of it will have been growth in the value to the equity already owned when the first sister moved out.

MargotBamborough · 18/10/2023 16:02

BalletBob · 18/10/2023 15:58

It sounds like she thought the agreement was that she would cover the mortgage payments as they became due (to free up your cash to move in with your boyfriend, and to avoid having to buy you out which she couldn't afford), but that she very reasonably expected that this would be rectified upon the eventual sale of the flat. Which is quite obviously the fair and decent thing. Either that or she agreed to it/suggested it under duress because she didn't want to lose her home. I can't believe you would think you should own 50% of an asset that you haven't contributed equally towards. She's your sister and you're trying to effectively steal from her.

I hope she does sue you and is successful. I also hope that the stress and emotional toll on her is something she is able to move past.

Why would that be the fair and reasonable thing? She never paid the OP rent for her half. Covering the OP's half of the mortgage WAS her rent.

Rent which the OP effectively subsidised because the sister wouldn't have been able to afford to rent an equivalent property on her own.

NameChangePoP · 18/10/2023 16:03

Freeme31 · 18/10/2023 14:57

Simple she is right. You are wrong.

Simple - you are wrong. FFS

NotaDryEye · 18/10/2023 16:03

Families are complicated.It sounds like your relationship with your sister has changed since you met and then moved in with your BF. OP - is your sister jealous of your relationship with him? Maybe that is why she is going back on her original agreement? Might be also worth considering if she didn't pay you rent or get a lodger, the cost of that maybe the same as your share of mortgage payments anyway?FWIW I was in a similar position, only my sister did not pay anything towards the mortgage or upkeep of the house. She then decided to buy with her BF, so I had to sell. I ended up giving her back half the proceeds and her deposit share and bore all the costs of selling. Dsis claimed that this was fair as I had lived in the house for 2 yrs and she did not. I did this to keep the peace, even though I was out of pocket. Families are complicated, and unfortunately things are sometimes not always fair.

sandyhappypeople · 18/10/2023 16:07

MargotBamborough · 18/10/2023 15:45

Why on earth should the OP not be entitled to a share of the property's increase in value over the last two years?

The OP says that her sister wanted to stay in the flat after she moved out because it was so much cheaper than renting somewhere else.

They could have sold the flat two years ago, which is what the OP wanted to do, and then the OP would have been able to get her money two years ago, which is when she wanted it.

Alternatively, the sister could have moved out of the flat and rented a room in a shared house, and they could have rented the flat out for a higher monthly rent than the mortgage repayments. If they had done that, both sisters would have had some extra money coming in each month, and they would both have been entitled to an equal share of the property's increase in value during that time.

The OP did her sister a favour by allowing her to stay in the flat and live more cheaply than would otherwise have been the case. Why should the OP be penalised for that now?

Show quote history

Why on earth should the OP not be entitled to a share of the property's increase in value over the last two years?
Because she hasn't lived there or payed anything towards it in that time, she should be entitled to half of what the house was worth 2 years ago when she decided to move out and stop paying towards it, by having half of what it is worth now (assuming it has gone up), she is profiting off the fact she saddled her sister with the property, which I don't think is morally right at all. But if they never had it valued 2 years ago it's pretty moot point to be honest.

It's always hard when two people have an agreement and one wants to change it, it's like when a partner moves out, you (the sister in this instance) can't afford to buy them out, or move to rented as it's more expensive, and you wouldn't get the mortgage on your own, so you're stuck with what you've got.. the sister did the right thing by staying put until she could get something else so I'm really not sure I can agree that OP did her sister a favour in that regard. Once you're on the property ladder it's easier to stay on it, then start from scratch later on.

Mumski45 · 18/10/2023 16:08

OP you are unfairly getting a hard time here. Your sister understood the arrangements and had full use of the house in the 2 year period. I agree that both morally (and possibly legally but I'm not a solicitor) the rent she should have paid you for the use of your half of the house cancels out any mortgage contribution you should have paid.
Your money and borrowing capacity was tied up for the period in which you were not living there and you should be compensated for that.

You have done nothing wrong and don't owe her anything.

Askil · 18/10/2023 16:13

CorylusAgain · 18/10/2023 14:02

Do you honestly not see how your change in circumstances massively affected your dsis? Your good fortune in having a second person to share living costs with effectively shafted your sister.
It was going to happen at some point, but you weren't doing your sister any favour were you? Just a compromise on a situation in which she couldn't win.

Show quote history

how on earth could you possibly in this scenario think you were doing your DSIS a favour??? You landed her with 100% of the mortgage of which you should have been paying 50%! you financially shafted her when you suddenly moved out and left her to sort everything out, then you shafted her again but grabbing a full 50% of the sale. The share of mortgage payments for the last 2 yrs that you are owing should've been deducted from your share of the sale.